- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:33 am to KiwiHead
quote:What statute and prevents what exactly? Unless he is the target of an investigation, then their previously known relationship is irrelevant.
Comey was Mueller's underling and good friend in his years at DOJ....there is a statute that prevents this.
quote:Do you disagree? They are to enforce criminal laws, which includes the government.
Comey believes that it is the duty of the FBI to investigate the government and has said so on many occassions
quote:It's troubling politics, but calling something a "matter" doesn't seem like obstruction in and of itself.
He did not report Loreta Lynch's obstruction and interference in the Clinton "matter"
quote:So the investigation is only a "possible investigation."
What you have here is a possible investigation of an obstruction of something
quote:Well the an investigation doesn't establish whether no crime occurred, it's to establish whether one did or not. Besides if there was an investigation then how can we say there was or wasn't a crime until that investigation is completed?
wherein the investigative body is saying that no crime has been committed.
quote:Yes he does. And what rights have been violated by the existence of a "possible" or "actual" investigation?
The President as an American citizen has rights
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
FWIW, even Comey's possession of and leaking of the infamous memo could potentially lead to criminal charges. You do know that, right?
No it can't
quote:
Certainly, if Comey oversaw some of the other IC leaks, he could and should be prosecuted.
Leaking is not a crime unless there is classified information in the leak.
quote:
There is far more evidence of the above than there is of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Classic grasping for straws.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:37 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:Well assuming guilt because a person "may" have pursued immunity is going too far.
When "sources" reported that Flynn was in search of an immunity deal, every liberal in this board said it meant he was guilty as sin.
HOWEVER, we at least know that Flynn is under investigation, and we know at least some of the reasons he is under investigation. So at least we know that there is a reason to seek immunity. We don't even have that basic fact established for Comey so it's taking it even further. Not to mention the sketchy publication, plus the unnamed source "believing" immunity because the DOJ "is kept in the dark." It's making an assumption based on the lack of information; that is ridiculous.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:40 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Sketchy publication? Check. Unnamed source? Check
Source without firsthand knowledge? Check
Source basing "belief" on lack of knowledge? Check
Poliboard Conclusion? Believe it because it confirms our outrage.
Yet, you and/or your ilk do the same thing here every single day.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 10:48 am to Havoc
quote:Do what exactly? Besides the "unnamed source," I don't recall ever arguing that something was true based on the other qualities of an article listed below:
Yet, you and/or your ilk do the same thing here every single day
quote:
Sketchy publication? Check. Unnamed source? Check Source without firsthand knowledge? Check Source basing "belief" on lack of knowledge? Check Poliboard Conclusion? Believe it because it confirms our outrage.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:07 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
What statute and prevents what exactly? Unless he is the target of an investigation, then their previously known relationship is irrelevant.
I can think of two in the Federal Code of Regulations
28 CFR 600.7 which basically states that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is disallowed. Mueller used to be Comey's boss and they are close friends....there could be a potential of bias.....which leads to .....
28 CFR 45.2 which entails " a personal relationship with a subject involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution." Comey is a material witness and would have to testify in any court proceeding. Given the fact that it is well known that Comey and Mueller are personal and social friends, this could be very problematic and any appeals court would have a field day as would Trumps lawyer. It's pretty much black letter reg which via administrative law makes it....well....the law.
quote:
Well the an investigation doesn't establish whether no crime occurred, it's to establish whether one did or not. Besides if there was an investigation then how can we say there was or wasn't a crime until that investigation is completed
Thus far there is zero, zilch, nada of any crime having been committed by either Trump or his campaign vis a vis the Russia investigation which is the underlying matter here. It is not unreasonable to request and even to implore he FBI director to issue a statement saying the fact. How long should the investigation into the Russia b.s. last. 6 months, 9 months, 1 year, 2 years ....should it be open ended until the end of Trump's erm and then everyone is satisfied and then the FBI says...."you know, we got nothing." Comey said on three occasions that Trump was not being investigated. Was Comey trying to set him up?
Trump, for better or worse is the duly elected President of the United States elected in a free and until otherwise proven a fair election ...something that Comey says was free and fair. Thus far the entire objective of the Russia investigation is to cast doubt on his legitimacy and to knee cap his ability to govern
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:20 am to KiwiHead
quote:It doesn't say "appearance," but obviously it is recommended to avoid this appearance.
which basically states that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is disallowed.
That being said, Mueller's relationship with Comey was known when he was appointed. If there wasn't an appearance then, I see no reason why there would be an appearance now based on what is known.
quote:What evidence do we have that their relationship is much more than professional in nature?
Comey is a material witness and would have to testify in any court proceeding. Given the fact that it is well known that Comey and Mueller are personal and social friends,
quote:That's not true. Here is the definition of a personal relationship, as defined by 28 CFR 45.2
It's pretty much black letter reg which via administrative law makes it....well....the law.
quote:
Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
quote:Well Trump isn't the target anyways, but again there is plenty of evidence to justify investigation of the associates, irrespective of their relationship with Russia. There is also seems to be plenty of evidence to investigate Russian's meddling in the election, irrespective of any involvement with American Citizens.
Thus far there is zero, zilch, nada of any crime having been committed by either Trump or his campaign vis a vis the Russia investigation which is the underlying matter here.
We seem to be assuming that those two investigations completely overlap. I don't know why we are making that assumption. They may or may not overlap, but whether they do or not, does not negate the investigations into the areas that do not.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:21 am to GumboPot
quote:
A coveted immunity deal in exchange for cooperating as a key witness.
It's the ONLY way to get semi-culpable folks to participate.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:21 am to GumboPot
Good let the truth come out.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:26 am to GumboPot
This is all bullshite. There should have never been a special prosecutor. I love Sessions but recusing himself was just stupid.
This will be dragged out as long as possible and will end with a press conference just like the one Comey had with the Hillary case.
This will be dragged out as long as possible and will end with a press conference just like the one Comey had with the Hillary case.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:28 am to buckeye_vol
Which Section of Code is that definition from? Is that applicable solely to that section or for the entire code. If you don't know off the top of your head, no biggie. I can look it up when I get back to the office.
Would 28 USCA 528 be applicable. Appearance of a political conflict requires disqualification.
I would guess the question is whether the special prosecutor is an officer or employee of the DOJ.
Would 28 USCA 528 be applicable. Appearance of a political conflict requires disqualification.
I would guess the question is whether the special prosecutor is an officer or employee of the DOJ.
This post was edited on 6/15/17 at 11:35 am
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:34 am to GumboPot
Quick question about immunity..
Does this supposed immunity only apply to what Mueller uncovers, or is it across the board? Could another special prosecutor into say... Hillary and/or Loretta Lynch ignore this immunity?
Does this supposed immunity only apply to what Mueller uncovers, or is it across the board? Could another special prosecutor into say... Hillary and/or Loretta Lynch ignore this immunity?
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:34 am to bamafan1001
quote:Well technically he is "special counsel" and his jurisdiction is still assigned by the AG, or in this case the Deputy AG. He does not have the same power as a "special prosecutor."
There should have never been a special prosecutor.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:41 am to GumboPot
Called this awhile back. But don't jump to conclusions. Everyone assumes this is immunity from what he says about Trump, but I think it's more to do with Hillary, Lynch, Holder, Obama etc.
I think a lot of this has been coordinated with Trump to help get Comey out of a bind and prevent another Clintoncide.
I think a lot of this has been coordinated with Trump to help get Comey out of a bind and prevent another Clintoncide.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:43 am to GumboPot
Mueller, Kerry, etc. Never trust any of these "hair cuts" that are Kennedy lore worshipers.
None can ever achieve this, but they certainly strive for the look...nasty people they are.
None can ever achieve this, but they certainly strive for the look...nasty people they are.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:44 am to BBONDS25
quote:
I would guess the question is whether the special prosecutor is an officer or employee of the DOJ.
Who hired him? Rod Rosenstein
What position does Rosenstein hold? Deputy Attorney General
Whom does Mueller and the IC investigative team report to? DAG Rosenstein
Where do the funds come from to fund the IC? My guess via the DOJ
You could say that the IC is "independent" but if he has someone to report to he is de facto an employee or at the very least an independent contractor, which then means Mueller operates at the pleasure of the DAG/ DOJ.
Mueller getting paid!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:45 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Unless he is the target of an investigation, then their previously known relationship is irrelevant.
This simply is not true.
The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.
What is a conflict of interest?
Simple definition
A conflict between a person's private interests and public obligations.
So, if a case hinges on your friend's testimony versus that of someone who is NOT a friend, the conflict is , will you tend to favor the testimony of your friend ? And what's more , the Justice Department policy (which the Special Counsel absolutely has to follow) state that there shouldn't even an APPEARANCE of a conflict.
I actually respect Bob Mueller, and I think he would be fair, BUT if he does uncover crimes during his investigation, any future defendants will be able to point to appearance of a conflict f interest. This isn't how you run a case. You run a case clean with NO conflicts, to avoid legal questions like this.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:49 am to BBONDS25
quote:I was using the code he specified: CFR › Title 28 › Chapter VI › Part 600 › Section 600.7 But this seems more applicable: GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL: § 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
Which Section of Code is that definition from?
quote:Unless we get more information, I just don't see how the Deputy AG could remove Mueller for a "conflict of interest" when the relationship was known before and at the appointment.
The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies.
Posted on 6/15/17 at 11:51 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:My point is that Mueller's relationship with Comey was known at the time of the appointment, so unless new information arises, it would be hard to see the the Deputy AG alleging a conflict of interest NOW, but not at the time of the appointment.
This simply is not true.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News